If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Originally Posted by Invictus

Ron Paul at a campaign stop last night at CMU.

Hey I was there It was absolute chaos. Everyone was trying to find a way in. They had to turn away like 500-700 people. Including my mum cause I couldnt get her a ticket, but my fiance and I were there. Was a really good rally, loved everything he said. Crowd was really into it. Felt like a rock concert XD.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Originally Posted by Bearded Frog

Hey I was there It was absolute chaos. Everyone was trying to find a way in. They had to turn away like 500-700 people. Including my mum cause I couldnt get her a ticket, but my fiance and I were there. Was a really good rally, loved everything he said. Crowd was really into it. Felt like a rock concert XD.

ALL LIES!! Everyone knows Ron Paul has little to no support

And about that Santorum surge fox news keeps repeating over and over..

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Good news for Ronulans... and those who like goofy underwear...

For the first time since late December 2011, Mitt Romney leads the president in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts support from 43%. Romney holds a nine-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

For the first time ever, Texas Congressman Ron Paul also leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.

If former Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by two, 45% to 43%. With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his opponent, the president enjoys a 10-point lead, 49% to 39%.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is unenthusiastic about Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who has told Fox viewers she'd vote for Gingrich -- and also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?)

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney -- though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.

Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?

I'm not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.)

I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention.

Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway?

Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won't be another Rick Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.

In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year.

Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture."

That last one was our nominee: John McCain.

This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.

That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.

Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.

But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.

As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.

But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.

This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media" and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.

It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."

Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.

The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."

If saving the environment is the best way to create new jobs, then it could be true that being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is the best way to appeal to the mass of independent voters.

Similarly, if reducing contraception use, lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge government programs such as moon colonies and No Child Left Behind are the best ways to create jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates in a general election.

Of course, it might also be true that dousing yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that you will find the perfect mate and get the perfect job.

We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!

Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as "too Establishment."

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Upon entering office, Romney faced a $3 billion deficit. Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased, some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these fees included were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs. Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[10] The state of Massachusetts raised $501 million in new income in the first year of the fee increase program, more than any other state in the nation that year (New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million).[11][12] Romney increased the state gasoline delivery fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue; raises the state gas tax to a total of 23 cents, compared with the national average of 28.6 cents per gallon.[3]

Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet[15] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".[3][16][17] Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed.[3][17] The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics, initially won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage, before Romney backed away from further closings towards the end of his term.[17] The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[18] In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts.[19] In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.[20]

lol, I didn't think anyone paid attention to Coulter these days. He balanced the budget without raising taxes? Bull.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Yeah...but the guy in the WH isn't running on a conservative "I won't raise your taxes" type of platform.

Are you joking? He talks about how he won't raise taxes on the lower and middle class every chance he gets. Did you miss all the stink about the silly payroll tax cut this past two months?

And why are you two liberal goofs arguing this? Are you guys just arguing to argue against Romney for the sake of arguing against Romney? He closed tax loopholes, which is what Obama talks about doing in every speech. Closing the corporate jet tax loophole and whatnot. So are you guys (BlackDragon and otoc) opposed to closing tax loopholes, or what?

I could see if I was arguing this with tucker or Dutch or something but I don't know why you two are piping in on this. Next thing you're going to tell me that Romney is bad because of RomneyCare and poor people shouldn't have health care. Is today opposite day or something?

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Are you joking? He talks about how he won't raise taxes on the lower and middle class every chance he gets. Did you miss all the stink about the silly payroll tax cut this past two months?

And why are you two liberal goofs arguing this? Are you guys just arguing to argue against Romney for the sake of arguing against Romney? He closed tax loopholes, which is what Obama talks about doing in every speech. Closing the corporate jet tax loophole and whatnot. So are you guys (BlackDragon and otoc) opposed to closing tax loopholes, or what?

I could see if I was arguing this with tucker or Dutch or something but I don't know why you two are piping in on this. Next thing you're going to tell me that Romney is bad because of RomneyCare and poor people shouldn't have health care. Is today opposite day or something?

LOL calm down there bud.

We are just pointing out that Ann Coulter is a windbag douche. And that the first claim in her article is, well, exaggerated at best and complete and total •••••••• at worst.

The tax plan Romney is running on is cut from the cloth of Reaganomics, and Obama's is cut from a more populist view. They may have some overlap but they are certainly not the same thing. So to compare them is a bit disingenuous.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

The tax plan Romney is running on is cut from the cloth of Reaganomics, and Obama's is cut from a more populist view. They may have some overlap but they are certainly not the same thing. So to compare them is a bit disingenuous.

(in don draper voice) What?

Romney's new tax plan is to cut tax rates and pay for it by limiting deductions for the upper class. Sounds an awful lot like what Obama just announced for the corporate tax code.

And the so-called "populist" payroll tax cut is the stupidest tax cut you can do. Dumb Americans see their paychecks get a little bigger so the stupid masses are happy, but America seeing a little pittance added to their paycheck won't drive any economic growth.

Nobody is going to buy a new house or buy a new car because Barack Obama, man of the people, added 5% back to their paycheck. But, it's a "tax cut for the middle and lower class" which sounds nice, and the average Joe is pleased to see that $80 back in his paycheck.

I think I share the view of most Republicans, which is we aren't principally opposed to the FICA tax cut, it's just the stupidest tax cut you can do and it won't drive any economic growth in this country, save for places like Applebee's, because now the family can go out more often for dinner.

I know the debate about the payroll tax cut is over as the Republicans and Democrats reached a deal, but, I dunno, I have these things to get off my chest.